Author Archives: DrDave

About DrDave

Retired player, current chess coach, organises chess events in Devon with a group of like-minded elves.

New starting formations (Tabi’at)

Posted on by

Introduction: Tabi’at

The old game of chess

  Modern (Western) chess originated from the Persian game
of shatranj , itself a derivation of the very similar
Hindu game of chaturanga . The rules of shatranj
(no double Pawn moves or castling, weaker Queen ( firzan )
and Bishop ( fil

  made it a slow game with a deferred clash of forces. This
encouraged the development of tabi’a (starting
formations), a recognised arrangement of forces which could be
aimed for almost regardless of the opponent’s play. You will find
written tabi’a tabia and tabiya , the
plural is tabi’at.

  Hooper and Whyld in their excellent Oxford Companion
to Chess give a selection of tabi’at.

|+.+.+.+.|
|.+p+.).+|
|+php)n).|
|p+.+.+.)|
|+rbqkbr-|
+-----------------+
 

  mujannah (=”flank opening”)

  N.B. the pieces on c1 and f1 are fils , the
piece on d1 a firzan  

|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+p+|
|)p)p)p+.|
|.+.+n$.)|
|+nbqkbr-|
+-----------------+

  sayyal (=”torrent”)

  A King’s-side attacking formation.

|+.+.+p+.|
|.+.).+p+|
|pppqpn+-|
|.+.h.+.)|
|+rb+kbr-|
+-----------------+

  Muwashshah (=”richly girdled”)

In practice, say H&W, the opponent would never allow the
completion of this strong attacking formation.

  Some players have tried to interpret old tabi’at
in modern chess, for example the mujannah can arise from
Bird’s opening. This is unnecessary, for modern chess has its own
tabi’at . The Soviet literature is quite rich in uses of
the term in modern chess.

 

Modern
Tabi’at

  Old Stodge

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+n0.h.+|
|+.g.0.+.|
|.+b+p+.+|
|+.hp+n+.|
|p)p+.)p)|
|$.gqi.+r|
+-----------------+

  I am uncomfortably aware that for some players,
especially juniors, this is a tabi’a . I wouldn’t mind so
much if I though they had the slightest idea what to do when they
got this far.

  King’s Indian

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.hpgp|
|.+.0.hp+|
|+.+p0.+.|
|.+p+p+.+|
|+.h.+n+.|
|p).+b)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  There are strong arguments for supposing this to be a
modern tabi’a . Both sides set up their formations without
any great account being taken of the moves of their opponent, and
from here a great many alternative plans are available to each
player.

  Sicilian Taimanov

  The veteran Russian GM Mark Taimanov is just one author
who uses the term in his writings.

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|+.+pgp0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.h.g.+.|
|p)p!b)p)|
|$.+.+ri.|
+-----------------+

  “This is one of the typical tabias (
sic ) of the Taimanov system. As in many similar variations,
this position is assessed as favourable for White.

  “White has an advantage in the centre, harmonious
development, pressure along the d-file and a wide choice of plans
to gain the initiative. Black is slightly restricted (at least in
the centre), and he has to spend time (at least three tempi) on
development.

  “Nevertheless, many practical examples show that
Black’s position is quite viable. What is the secret?

  “First of all, Black’s position is invulnerable as
yet, because his pieces control the whole defensive region, so it
is difficult to approach his position (the only worrying aspect is
the weakened d6 square). Besides, Black has good opportunities of
his own in prospect. For instance, if he manages to arrange his
pieces freely according to the scheme …Qc7, …Rfd8, …Bb7,
…Rac8, then he can count on promising counterplay on the
Queen’s-side connected with …Nc6-a5-c4, and, in some cases, on
pressure along the a8-h1 diagonal. That is why the theoretical
debate concerned with this variation has already been going on for
several decades, deepening the understanding of the position for
both sides, but not coming to a final conclusion.

  “Obviously, White’s attempts to gain the initiative
can be linked either to the weak d6 square (12. Bf4), or to active
play in the centre and King’s-side (11.f4 or 11.Rad1,
etc.).”

  The book gives two games:

  11.Rad1 [ or 11.f4 Bb7 12.e5!? Na5!?
13.Bd3 Rc8 14.Ne2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Rxc4 16.Rad1 Qc8 (Black is better)
17.c3 b4!? 18.Rc1 0-0 19.b3 bxc3 20.Nxc3 Rc6 21.Na4 Ba3 22.Rxc6
Qxc6 23.Nb6 d6!? 24.exd6 Bxd6 25.Rc1 Qe4 26.Rc4 Qb1+ 27.Rc1 Qg6
28.Qc2 Be4 29.Qf2 Rd8!? 30.Rd1 Bc7 31.Rxd8+ Bxd8 32.Nc4 Bd5 33.Nd2
h6 34.h3 a5 35.Nf3 Bc7 36.Nd4 Qb1+ 37.Kh2 g5!? 38.Nb5 Bxf4+ 39.Bxf4
gxf4 40.Nc3 Qf5… Unzicker,W-Taimanov,M/Wijk aan Zee 1981/0-1
(53)] 11…0-0 12.Bf4 Qa5!? 13.a3 Rd8 14.Bd6 Bb7
15.Bxe7 Nxe7 16.Qg5!? f6 17.Qc5 Nc6 18.Rd6 Rac8 19.Rfd1 Nb8 20.Qe3
Rc6 21.R6d4 Qb6 22.Qh3 Qc5 23.Nd5!! exd5 24.exd5 Rd6 25.c4! bxc4
26.Rxc4 Qa5 27.Rh4! h6 28.Rxh6! Rxd5 29.Rh8+ Kf7 30.Bc4 Ke7 31.Bxd5
Bxd5 32.Rxd8 Nc6 33.Re8+! 1-0 Sznapik,A – Donchev,D [ or B46]
Prague (11), 1985

 

French Tarrasch

  There are two parallel but over-lapping variations of the
main line 3…Nf6 French Tarrasch.

  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3
Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6

  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3
Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0
Bd6

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p+.+.0p|
|.1ngph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+b+n+.|
|p).+n)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  Tony D strongly recommends having this type of position
in your repertoire, and being able to play it for both sides. The
point is, there are some very common Pawn formations to be mastered
here, and you can read a lot of the plans right off the Pawn
structure. However, the Pawn structure is not fixed.

  A French root and some branches

  The classic French structure arises after the Pawn
moves:

  e4 d4 e5

  …e6 …d5

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.+p).+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|p)p+.)p)|
|$ngqibhr|
+-----------------+

  As both sides contest the centre, this fundamental
structure is altered.

  The basic French centre

-+p+
+pP-
-P-+
+-+-

  There are some themes here that re-appear in many
variations below.

  Black has a poor light-squared Bishop, at least for the
moment. Black would like to exchange light-squared Bishops, White
would like to exchange dark-squared Bishops.

  White has more space and a potential King’s-side
attacking position.

  Black, who has the move, will attempt to attack the chain
with Pawn moves like:

  …c5 …f6 …cxd4 …fxe5 …f5

  Black will continue to put pressure on d4 and can extend
the scope of the attack to c3 by advancing the b-Pawn. Nimzovitch,
who studied the Advance Variation, always recommended the attack on
the base of the Pawn chain. Since Nimzo, and since the development
of the Tarrasch variation, we see much more virtue in attacking the
head. In fact, we see a lot more …f6s in the Advance these
days.

  White will defend or change the centre with Pawn moves
like:

  c3 f4 dxc4 exf6

  White must try to make the space or the attack tell
without allowing Black to destroy the centre and without getting in
a tangle. Black will use obvious piece moves like …Nc6 and …Qb6
to put pressure on the Pawn centre. The immediate Pawn attack,
around which Black’s development in this line revolves, is:

  …c5

-+p+
ppP-
-P-+
+-+-

  [ or Black can try and do without this move in other
lines of the French (Guimard).]

  c3

  French tension centre

-+p+
ppP-
-P-+
P-+-

  White usually tries to hold the centre initially with
c2-c3.

  After an exchange of Pawns:

  …cxd4, cxd4

  French centre with open c-file

-+p+
+pP-
-P-+
+-+-

  The exchange relieves a certain amount of central
pressure, but brings the base of White’s Pawn chain a little nearer
Black’s pieces.

  The open c-file allows a variety of new possibilities for
Black, most notably use of the b4 square (…Bb4+, …Nb4).

  …f6, exf6 Nxf6

  Two weaknesses

-+p+
+p+-
-P-+
+-+-

  This is the key formation we will discuss in more detail
below. The two Pawn weaknesses alluded to are Pe6 and Pd4; the Pe6
is weaker, being exposed on a half-open file, and White has the
advantage of being able to play on e5 as well as e6. However, Black
can attack d4 just as easily as White can attack e6, and can even
hope to get in the dynamic …e6-e5:

-+-+
+pp-
-P-+
+-+-

  After an exchange of Pawns (White naturally does not want
to allow …e5-e4) we develop the:

  IPQP centre

  Isolated passed Queen Pawn.

-+-+
+p+-
-+-+
+-+-

  White should behave the same as in an IQP centre,
blockading the Pawn and holding Black to its defence, looking for
second weaknesses; Black should look for attacking chances on the
open lines, and chances to advance the passed Pawn.

  dxc5

  French strongpoint centre.

-+p+
+pP-
-+-+
P-+-

  White gives up d4, the better to hang on to the single
point e5. Also, this exchange may wrong-foot Black by requiring a
recapture on c5.

  Black will typically try to destroy this centre with

  …f6

-+pp
+pP-
-+-+
P-+-

  With the head of the White Pawn chain so close to hand
and under such pressure, it is hard for White to defend it and we
normally see an exchange.

  This leads to the next central formation:

  Isolated Pawn couple

-+p+
+p+-
-+-+
P-+-

  This is quite a stable formation which can dominate
planning in the early middle game. Black has a concrete weakness on
e6 and a weak square on e5. This is why White is so happy to
exchange: a lot of the cramp exerted by the previous structure
still persists and White now has open lines against plain
targets.

  Black would ideally like to achieve …e6-e5, dominating
the centre. White, not unnaturally, would prefer to restrain this,
and so moves like Re1, Ne5, Bf4 and so on are all key. White would
perhaps also like to achieve f2-f4, but may need to move the Nf3 to
do so.

  You very often get a similar centre with f4 from the main
line of the Classical Variation:

-+p+
+p+-
-+-P
P-+-

  French very tense centre.

  From the Tarrasc with 5.f4:

-+pp
ppP-
-P-P
P-+-

  This centre could resolve into almost any other
formation! In fact the tension may be enhanced by a Black
…g7-g5.

  Some specifics

  We’ll look in detail at the “Two weaknesses” formation as
seen in the …Nf6 French Tarrasch.

-+p+
+p+-
-P-+
+-+-

 

The ideas and the moves

This French Tarrasch tabi’a is a complex formation with a
nearly full complement of pieces and Pawns and a wide variety of
plans available to each side. We can see in each of the games below
a rich interplay of desirable strategic ideas tempered by tactical
realities. It is even impossible to generalise on which wing each
player will attack: Black has several King’s-side attacking ideas
like …Ng4, …Bxh2 and …Rxf3

  To look at specifics, I’ll choose the less common …Qb6
line.

  This is because:

  1. The more common Qc7 line is a jungle (although we can
    transpose)
  2. The more common line Qc7 can be avoided by the murky 8.Nf4
    variation, winning the exchange.
  3. This less common Qb6 line has a superb how-to-play guide in
    John Watson’s book.

  MacDonald and Harley note that the Qb6 often comes back
to Qc7, helping protect the King. But this is no waste of time
because typically White has had to spend time coping with the
attacks on b2 and d4, and may have settled for the passive Be3.
They also note that Farago always plays …Qb6 and is never in any
trouble!

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p+.+.0p|
|.1ngph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+b+n+.|
|p).+n)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  This is the position after Black’s move 11, with White to
move.

  The Black Queen attacks Pawns on b2 and d4, restricting
White’s development. If the Bc1 moves, the b2 Pawn is hanging. If
either Knight moves, the d4 Pawn isn’t really hanging, because
after …Nxd4; Nxd4 Qxd4, the Bd3 can play away with check, winning
the Qd4. But the Ne2 really will move one day, and the Black King
may not always be on a checkable square. In fact, one common idea
is for Black to play …Kh8, threatening the d-Pawn. After
castling, Black’s Rook has occupied the half-open f-file, with new
ideas like …Rf8xf3 or xf2. Black’s pieces are all quite active
and White has yet to untangle; White is no position yet to exploit
the static weakness of the Pe6 and the temporarily poor Bc8. Black
has some unobvious moves like …Nb4 (hitting d3/c2) and …Ng4
(hitting ../e5), or manoeuvring either Knight to f5
(…Nc6-e7-f5/ …Nf6-g4-h6-f5) to keep White from settling into a
sound attacking position, and some enterprising ideas like
…Bc8-d7-e8-h5 to activate the Bishop.

  What are White’s choices here? Almost every legal move
has been played!

  1. 12.Rb1 – idea: protect the b-Pawn and play Bf4
  2. 12.Ng3 – idea: control ../h5, block …Bd6xh2
  3. 12.Bg5?! – ideas: gambit b-Pawn, play Bg5-h4-g3 to swap
    dark-squared Bishops
  4. 12.a3 – ideas: advance b-Pawn to b4, harass Nc6, occupy c5;
    prevent …Nb4 (maybe organise Bc2/Qd3) (development lagging
    though)
  5. 12.Re1 – idea: pressure on e5/Pe6/Ke8, but weakens f2; often
    transposes below
  6. 12.Qd2 – idea: Qg5
  7. 12.Bf4 – ideas: exchange Bd6, gambit Pb2; there is sometimes
    the trick …Bxf4; Nxf4, Nxd4!; Nxd4, e5!
  8. 12.b3 – ideas: protect b-Pawn, move Bc1 to f4 (or b2)
  9. 12.Nf4 – idea: hit e6. A critical try although Black can gambit
    the Pe6
  10. 12.Bd2 – idea: to c3 securing b2 and d4; slow
  11. 12.Nc3 – the flexible main line, committing White to nothing
    (although giving up Bf4). It adds some new ideas like Nc3-b5, or,
    after …a6, Nc3-a4-b6

  This actually doesn’t exhaust the ideas, just the moves!
One more idea is Ra1-c1xc6, undermining e5.

  How might the game go after 12. Nc3?

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p+.+.0p|
|.1ngph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+b+n+.|
|p).+n)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  Tseitlin,M-Beake,B/Hastings Challengers 1990/EXP
21/1-0 (57)

  This key game was given in John Watson’s book, although
he safeguards the Black pieces to a B Becke. This continues a fine
tradition of mis-attributing key games by Exeter players, after BCO
gave a critical Petroff variation played by HV Mallison (against
Hugh Alexander) as being essayed by Mattison, the Latvian
problemist.

  [We spent some time looking at the variations in Watson’s
book]

  I find all this detail daunting, but Tony D says the
detail is not so important as the ideas – there are a lot of games,
but not so much theory! The idea being that Black can solve
problems over the board. On the other hand, Watson says “Theory has
exploded!”. Perhaps the real answer is, ideas first, theory second.
There are lots of ideas in “non-theoretical” openings which are not
widely known, and players get by in blissful ignorance because
their opponents don’t know the theory either! For examples, look at
the Beating the
Anti-Indians document.

  Your comments and experiences are welcome!

  P.S. Other French centres

  If White avoids e4-e5 we get other centres; while the
Pawn is on e4 either White or Black can exchange, which lead to
very different types of game.

  Bibliography:

  Hooper, David & Whyld, Ken. Oxford Companion
to Chess (2nd edition). O.U.P.

  Taimanov, Mark. The Sicilian Taimanov
System . Batsford

  Watson, John. Play the French (revised
third edition). Cadogan.

  MacDonald, Neil & Harley, Andrew. Mastering
the French . Batsford.

Attack and defence

Posted on by

4th_Aug_09 Attack and Defence

Items from the initial list of areas for improvement:

  • – Attacking chess where simplification is not the best option
  • – Defending
  • – When you have to defend something and stop your attack
Fischer-Myagmarsuren Sousse 1967

  • Fischer R. – Miagmasuren L. [A08]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Be7 7. O-O
O-O 8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 b5 10. Nf1 b4 11. h4 a5 12. Bf4 a4 13. a3

“Believe it or not, I actually spent more time on this innocuous
push (15 minutes) than on any other move in the game! I didn’t want to
allow Black to get in …a3 thereby creating ‘holes’ on c3 and a3. On
the other hand, by stopping to meet his positional threat I am forced
to postpone my own schemes for at least one move. Chess is a matter of
delicate judgement, knowing when to punch and how to duck.”

13…bxa3 14. bxa3 Na5 15. Ne3 Ba6 16. Bh3 d4 17. Nf1 Nb6 18. Ng5 Nd5
19. Bd2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qd7 21. Qh5 Rfc8 22. Nd2 Nc3 23. Bf6 Qe8 24. Ne4
g6 25. Qg5 Nxe4 26. Rxe4 c4 27. h5 cxd3 28. Rh4 Ra7 29. Bg2 dxc2 30.
Qh6 Qf8 31. Qxh7+ 1-0

Here’s another classic Fischer game, where the cut and thrust is
more to the fore:

  • Fischer-Rossolimo, USA chp 1965

Successful attack

  • Jepps,G – Regis,D [C00] East Devon Exeter (4), 2005

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Be3 dxe4 4.f3 Nf6 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Nd2 Nf6 7.Ngf3
Nbd7 8.Bd3 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qe1 c5 11.Qh4 cxd4 12.Bg5 g6 13.Ne4 Re8
14.Ne5 Nxe4 15.Rxf7 Nxg5 16.Bxg6 Nf3+ 17.gxf3 Bxh4 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Ng6#
1-0

Successful defence

  • Steinitz – Vasques [C11] Havana, 1888
  • [Notes in PGN/Palview]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Nxf6+ Bxf6 7.Bxf6
Qxf6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.c3 b6 10.Ne5 Nd7 11.Ng4 Qf4 12.Be2 Bb7 13.0-0 f5
14.Ne3 Rf6 15.Re1 Rh6 16.Nf1 Nf6 17.Bf3 Ne4 18.Re3 Rf8 19.Qa4 a5
20.Rae1 Rd8 21.Ng3 Qh4 22.h3 Nxf2 23.Bxb7 Nxh3+ 24.gxh3 Rg6 25.Bg2 Rf8
26.Qc4 Kh8 27.Qxc7 f4 28.Rf1 Rxg3 29.Qd6 Rd8 30.Rxf4 1-0

Unsuccessful attack

  • Morgan,J – Southall,C [A40] Club Championship 08/09 (5) 2009
  • [Notes in PGN/Palview]

1.d4 b5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3 Bb7 4.Bf4 e6 5.e3 Nf6 6.h3 Bd6 7.Ne5 0-0 8.Nd2
Nd5 9.Bd3 Nxf4 10.exf4 f5 11.Rh2 c5 12.Ndf3 Nc6 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Ne5 Bb7
15.g4 cxd4 16.cxd4 Bb4+ 17.Kf1 Bd5 18.a3 Be7 19.g5 d6 20.Nf3 Qb6 21.Be2
Rfc8 22.h4 Ra7 23.h5 Rac7 24.Ne1 a5 25.b4 a4 26.Rb1 Rc3 27.Bf3 Bxf3
28.Nxf3 Rxa3 29.Qe2 d5 30.Ne5 Qxd4 31.Ng6 Kf7 0-1

Lessons from this game:
  • White developed as he intended to, and attacked as he intended
    to, without heed to Black’s actual set-up.
  • Black offers White a target on move 1, which White ignores.
  • gxf5 was a chance to open up lines — perhaps the position is
    still better for Black, but White spends the rest of the game
    unsuccessfully trying to prise open the Black King’s-side.
  • The Move-all-the-pieces-over-and-checkmate plan can work, but it
    works when the centre is either blocked (Fischer’s KIA and Brian’s
    Stonewall) or is owned by the attacking side.
  • White lost some tempi earlier on (c3 and h3) which could have
    been put to better use.
  • The game is an argument for greater flexibility in setting up
    your attacks — if White had spent some time tying Black down to
    defence on the Queen’s-side, a later switch to the King’s-side might
    have been decisive.

Tactical surprises

Posted on by

28th_July_09 Tactical surprises

Tactical surprises: a preliminary sketch

the problem:

Let’s have a look at an example:

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+b1.g.0p|
|p+n+.0.+|
|+p0.H.)n|
|.+.0.).+|
|+.+P+.+P|
|P)PGN!B+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Stretten-Keen 2009 (W)

The crushing continuation was

1. Bd5+ Kf8

and at the time, Fritz confidently announced:

2. g6!+-

Rather later, Stockfish sees:

2.Nf7+ Kg8 3.Ne6+ +-, winning the Exchange.

Showing this to the group, Bd5+ was the first move suggested, but Charlie reports that he didn’t even consider it! Why the disparity?

Let’s see that position in a bit of context: the previous moves were:

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+b1.gp0p|
|p+n+.+.+|
|+p0.+.)n|
|.+.0.).+|
|+.+P+N+P|
|P)PGN!B+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Stretten-Keen 2009 (W)

  • Keen C. – Streeter H. [B23]

1. Ne5 f6

2. Bd5+ Kf8

3. g6!

Now we see that, a couple of moves ago, Bd5 was not a legal move, and would not have been check if it was! So, one tip for not being surprised would be:

  • After each move, try to list any new possibilities for each side, particularly newly legal moves.

To anticipate a little the later discussion, you generally have a little list of ‘Moves I would like to make soon’ and ‘Moves I expect my opponent will make soon’, which we might call candidate moves , and you need to be as sure as you can that you aren’t leaving anything important off these lists.

Also, that move counts as an intermezzo , an in-between move: White ignores the apparently forcing threat on the Knight. In fact, only checks are genuinely forcing. This suggests another tip:

  • Before you decide on your move, ask: can I, or can my opponent, ignore the threat?

work in progress: identifying and working on a problem

I (DR) found myself regularly falling for destructive combinations against my French Defence, sacrifices of a piece against my central pawns. Here are a few:

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p+b+.0p|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.gp1.H.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HQ+.).|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Headlong-Regis 2003 (W)

  • Headlong F. – Regis D. [C02]

+-----------------+
|.+r1.4k+|
|+.+b+.gp|
|p+n+p+p+|
|+p+p)n+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|).HQ+N+P|
|.).+B)PG|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+
Benson-Regis 2004 (W)

  • Benson P. – Regis D. [C02]

+-----------------+
|.4r+.+k+|
|0.+.+p+p|
|.+n$p+pg|
|+q+p).+.|
|Q+.).+B+|
|+.+.+.+P|
|.+.+N)P+|
|+.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Thompson-Regis 2005 (W)

  • Thompson D. – Regis D. [B27]

Diagnosis may be most of the cure here: I should not assume that my long-standing pawn structure is indestructible.

the variety of tactical motifs

  • Take for nothing
  • Checkmate
  • Knight forks
  • Pins
  • Skewers
  • Other forks
  • Discoveries
  • Nets
  • Sacrifice
  • More attackers than defenders
  • Undermining
  • Overloading
  • Double check
  • Queening
  • Clearance
  • Decoys
  • Stalemate
  • Interference

The technician, whose vocabulary has been doubled by Dr. Euwe, will find that White could have saved his soul by a desperado combination. Had this failure anything to do with the fact that Dr. Euwe’s terminology was not yet existent at that time!?

— Reinfeld, to Thomas-Euwe, Carlsbad 1929.

I suggested that you need to be fluent in these motifs. Charlie remarked that this was a ‘big ask’, but I don’t think it’s hugely different to learning a new language — or a new alphabet — which is definitely a challenge but which loads of people do all t he time.

Fluency comes mostly through practice. A while ago I suggested that fluency comes in stages:

  1. I’ve heard of it!
  2. I know it when I see it
  3. I can spot it in simple examples
  4. I can spot it in complex examples and I can use it in my own games

exercising imagination by solving problems

“Let us repeat once more the methods by which we can increase our combinative skill:

“(1) by careful examination of the different types and by a clear understanding of their motives and their premises

“(2) By memorising a number of outstanding as well as of common examples and solutions

“(3) Frequent repetition (in thought, if possible) of important combinations, so as to develop the imagination.”

— Euwe, Strategy and Tactics in Chess

I was rather provoked by the notion that flights of imagination are best developed by leaden rehearsal, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.

motifs in combination

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|0p+q+.gn|
|.+.0.+p+|
|+.0P+p+.|
|PhP+.+.G|
|+.HB+Q+P|
|.).+.+P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
(W) I found this one quite surprising.

Some lessons from this example might be:

  • If there is a move you really want to make, try and make it!
  • Look at your intended moves in different orders: one order might unlock the box

other surprising moves

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|+b0R+p+.|
|.0q+p!p+|
|0.+.).+p|
|P+P$.+.)|
|+.+.+N+.|
|.+P+.)P+|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+
Short-Timman 1991 (W)

I enjoyed all your suggestions here, but once you are shown the first move of the continuation, the idea is apparent and amusing.

The surprise lies in breaking a rule: hide your King in the middlegame, use your king actively only in the endgame.

  • All chess rules are really guidelines!

amazing moves

+-----------------+
|.+r+.+.i|
|0b+.1.+P|
|.0.+.+.+|
|+.+P0.+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+P+.$.+.|
|PGr!.+P)|
|+.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Zukertort-Blackburne 1883 (W)

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+.+.ip+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|p+.+r)R)|
|+.+K+.).|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+
Flohr-Geller 1949 (B)

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+k0p+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|p+.+.+.)|
|+.G.+.+.|
|.+.+.+P+|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+
Topalov-Shirov 1998 (B)

All from Emms’ The Most Amazing Chess Moves Of All Time

A fun way to extend your assumptions about what is possible. It makes Euwe’s advice a pleasure to follow!

candidate moves (KOTOV) and candidate replies

  • “All candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one’s head.” — Kotov,A Think like a Grandmaster , tr. Cafferty. [1978] (Batsford)

    • Kotov has come in for a lot of stick recently, but I think this is not bad advice. What are you doing that is any better?!

    checks and captures first (PURDY)

    • Examine moves that smite!

    That is, checks and captures.

    every check and every capture? (CHERNEV/REINFELD)

    • Examine every possible check and capture at every move

    Oh, how many games would I have saved by obeying this one!

    I don’t know how many people actually do this either, but again, what do you do that is any better?

    The other side of the coin

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+P+.0p|
    |.+.+.+.i|
    |+p+.+.1.|
    |p+.+.+.+|
    |)b)N+.+.|
    |.).H.+.+|
    |+.I.$.+.|
    +-----------------+
    Short-Kasparov 1993 (W)

    I don’t know what made Short miss this line ( 1.Rh1+ Kg6 2.Ne5+ Kf5 3.Nc6)

    You have to notice that the undefended Knight on e5 cannot be taken and then you have to follow two checks with a quiet move… but once you focus on getting a Knight to cover d8, then you didn’t take long to spot it.

    The point of this example is: the other half of the coin of being surprised is missing chances
     

    Work in progress

    Nxe6!, Nxd5! and Qxb5 Qxb5 Rxe6!

    Combination

      …Re3!

    Short surprise

      Kh2!

    Amazing moves

      Qb4, …Kg7, …Nh3

    Exchange sacrifices

    Posted on by

    Actively sacrificing a Rook depends on you having an open file and something to aim at. So the best-rehearsed exchange sacrifices are …Rc8xNc3 in the Sicilian, …Rf8xNf3 in the French and to some extent the Dutch, Rf1xf6 against the Sicilian… You need some compensation for your Rook: either a good central pawn, or the weakening of the opposing King’s defences, or all three!

    White sacrifices for attack on f6 in the Sicilian

    Nezhmetdinov R. – Tal M. [B85]

    White sacrifices for attack on h5 in the Sicilian

    Fischer R. – Larsen B. [B77]

    Black sacrifices for attack on c3 in the Sicilian

    Movsesian S. – Kasparov G. [B80]

    Black sacrifices for initiative on c3 in the Sicilian

    Bednarski J. – Lehmann H. [B87]

    Black sacrifices for too little on c3 in the Sicilian

    Devon_Harry – Somerset [B78]

    Black sacrifices for initiative in the King’s Indian

    Pachman L. – Bronstein D. [E67]

    Encore!

    Zita F. – Bronstein D. [E67]

    White sacrifices for all sorts of compensation in the Grunfeld

    Bronstein D. – Boleslavsky I. [D89]

    Another common theme is the ‘passive’ sacrifice of Rook for the opponent’s better Bishop by parking it on the natural outpost on an open file. You get a passed pawn and play against a colour complex.

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (1)

    Liublinsky V. – Botvinnik M. [C77]

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (2)

    Selesniev – Alekhin

    Compensation for the exchange

    Lasker – Janowsky

    Rooks don’t like defending against passed pawns

    Pope S. – Regis D. [B22]

    The defensive sacrifice for defensive reasons is particularly associated with Petrosian, and everyone cites this example:

    A defensive sacrifice

    Reshevsky – Petrosian [E58]

    Petrosian is at it again

    Petrosian T – Spassky B [E66]

    The Karpov sacrifice

    Lutz C. – Karpov A. [E12]

    A whole Rook

    Maroczy G. – Tartakower S. [A85]

    Click on […] to see games list.

    The Sicilian Jungle

    Posted on by

    I prepared a sort of road map on the Sicilian and ended up talking around some positional themes…

    Anyhow, here’s the road map and I’ll see about making it web-friendly and incorporating some of the chat.

    “Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!”
    from The Princess Bride (via Christine Malcom)

    I did talk about how to win with the Maroczy Bind: here are a couple of games:

    From Evolution to Intelligent Design?

    Posted on by

    From Evolution to Intelligent Design by Ish Ramdewar

    How can I get better at chess? This is the question that most players
    in any club are asking. One answer is to play games. Playing games
    gives experience, and is an essential element of improvement. But
    simply playing games with no reflection on mistakes made is tantamount
    to evolution: A very effective process that produces amazingly advanced
    and adapted results. If given millions of years!

    So, how then to reflect on your own chess in order to move from trial
    and error to a systematic system where you build the game you want to
    build? Of course, the answer is far from simple and must be adapted for
    the player and stage in his or her development. Essentially, you need
    to know two things: Where am I? And… How can I move on to the next
    stage? Many people attempt to do the second one before the first. If
    you think of your talent as a tube of toothpaste, when you first take
    up chess, it doesn’t matter where you squeeze, you’ll get some
    toothpaste (improvement) out. Later, though, you might find yourself
    making less progress than you might as you’re squeezing areas where
    you’re already relatively strong. This session is dedicated to helping
    you reach your potential through self-reflection. I hope you find some,
    or all of these tips useful, they work for me! I’m not saying that my
    way is right in any way, and if you think it’s a load of rubbish, feel
    free to ignore everything I say.

    So how to find out where you are? One simple, easy way is to get a
    book. There is at least one excellent one about: Chess Exam and
    Training Guide by Igor Khmelnitsky. This book will give you an overview
    of your chess. Be willing to spend around 10-20 hours working through
    the problems and solutions. It will then give you an overall elo
    rating, and break this down into opening, middlegame, endgame, tactics,
    strategy, calculation and more.

    My second recommendation is to play a lot of longplay games. You can
    then analyse them thoroughly (more on this later). After this is done,
    you can affect some change. What works for me is to keep all of my
    games together in one book. A 100-game hardback scorebook will set you
    back about a fiver and should last 2-10 years; depending on how often
    you play. Not bad for a hobby, eh? I still go back to my old one when
    I’m feeling bad about my current chess. It shows me how far I’ve come.

    h3Gathering Information/h3
    pMy next piece of advice is to write down the amount of time left on
    your clock when you write your moves down. You might be surprised at
    how you use your time. The long and short of it is that you should be
    aiming to use almost all your time in a game (leaving, say, 10 mins to
    spare so that you’re not in time-trouble). The reason for this is that
    we all play better moves when we take time to check our decisions and
    our opponent’s possible responses. Playing too fast or too slow is easy
    to see when you spend only 10 mins on a longplay game, or 30 mins on
    one non-critical move. Put a star by the critical moves after your
    game. Did you spend long enough on them? Once you’ve gone through your
    game, you can easily see whether you blundered by rushing. I put a
    dashed line on my annotation after I run out of ‘book’. This provides a
    quick-fire way of telling how deeply you know this particular opening.

    h3
    How to Analyse Your Games
    /h3

    If you can, go over your game with your opponent. They often have
    ideas that you missed or interesting insights, even if they are
    ‘weaker’. Play the moves out on the board with him and analyse
    variations. Pick out where you think you went wrong, both strategically
    and tactically. If you can, write notes. If you can’t get to go over
    the game with your opponent, or even if you can, go over the game in
    your own time, without a computer. What you’re looking for are flaws in
    your own psychology. “I blundered a piece” is not good enough. Why did
    you blunder it? Were you in a tough position because of earlier
    positional mistakes? Did you rely on intuition too much? Did you rush?
    Were you overconfident in your own position? Every game should be
    looked at with this in mind.

    Next, go over the game with computer assistance. There are now some
    very strong programs around. The strongest currently is called Rybka 3,
    with an estimated elo of 3000 on your average PC. Rybka not only plays
    tactical positions well, it can also play positionally. You can pick up
    a copy for around £30-£70 depending if you want the
    multiprocessor version and opening books… OR you can use a free copy of
    Rybka 2 (which still beat Michael Adams 5.5-0.5 in a match). This is
    available here:


    http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Demo+version

    Dave has also asked me to point out that there are other options:

    Download and install the free version of Fritz 5:

    http://freechess.50webs.com/fritz.html

    And Winboard:
    For doodling, download and install Winboard:

    http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/winboard/winboard-4_2_7b.exe


    I know Simon also likes SCID.

    Fritz or Chessmaster are other good options, but Rybka is the best in
    my opinion.

    How to use Computer Analysis

    After you’ve done the analysis on your own, you’re ready for
    computer assistance. The computer will often see things that you won’t.
    I suggest running automatic analysis for a couple of hours. Computers,
    just as humans, play better when they have more time. Fritz,
    Chessmaster and Aquarium all have their own versions of this.

    When this is done, check your own notes against the ‘answers’. The
    longer you give your computer to ‘think’, and the stronger engine you
    use, the more you can rely on its analysis. Where your analysis agrees,
    you can be happy that you’ve come to the objective truth. Where you
    disagree in your analysis, or you’ve missed something, go over the
    position in infinite analysis mode. Remember that sometimes you might
    be right! The computer is not an all-knowing oracle, it’s just better
    than us on average. Champion your side and play the computer’s ‘best
    response’. Try to come to some objective truth and note this down. Do
    this for both your moves and your opponents. It will help you to
    analyse objectively in your own games.

    Using Statistics to Analyse Your Chess

    By the end of the season, you should have lots of information on
    individual games. It might be worth your time to classify this. Using
    stats, as in the example I’ve done can help you gain insights in where
    you often go wrong, and where to focus your efforts. In my case, it
    appears to be on the early middlegame, and the Sicilian Defence for
    both sides. The first thing to do is to list your openings and opening
    outcomes. This shows you which openings are going well and which
    aren’t. Your self-analysis and computer analysis will make this a
    breeze. It took me about 30 mins to knock up a season’s worth of stats-
    well worth doing!

    Then, I suggest you classify your early and late middlegame outcomes.
    This will show you whether your positions improved, got worse, or
    stayed the same on average. For me, the numbers were telling. You can
    break it down further by keeping it per-opening, but I personally
    lumped the lot together to get an overview.

    You can then do the same with your endgames. You can break them down by
    piece too. (e.g. Queen Endings, Rook and Pawn, etc.) I personally
    scored very well during endgame play this season, and have decided to
    focus my efforts elsewhere.

    These methods were suggested by Simon Webb and adapted by myself. I
    know it all sounds time-consuming, but pick and choose the bits you
    like most. Sometimes you can get a feel for your mistakes just by
    analysis without a computer and with no stats. Personally, I like the
    hard data and find it not too hard to produce.nbsp;

    Lastly, ask other members where they think your weak points are. I’m
    sure they will have some good insights.

    In all your analysis be very hard on yourself. You want to root out the
    problems in your thinking, don’t you? Happy hunting!

    Where Next?

    By using some, or all of these methods, you should have a good idea
    about your own chess. Now you know where to focus, there are some
    excellent options to choose from on where to improve.


    My top books:

    Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, Winning Chess Endgames
    Chess for Tigers (easy-reads).

    Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics, Chess Combination as a Fine Art, Reassess
    Your Chess, (medium reads).

    Think Like a GM, Play Like a GM, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (Hard Reads)


    Top exercises:

    Chess Tactics Server
    http://chess.emrald.net/

    Memorising positions and playing them blindfolded.

    Playing blindfold games.

    Doing puzzle books (e.g. Chess Exam).

    Doing deep analysis of positions and comparing with commentator and
    computer analysis. Draw a ‘tree of analysis”.
    Analyse GM games using the same methods as described for your own games.


    Good luck!

    p

    Ish also offered a thorough review
    of his games from the last season, which is included


    here

    Are you sitting comfortably? Coaching sessions for 2009

    Posted on by

    I’ll soon fix that…

    First, we discussed some statements from Jonathan Rowson (

    Chess for
    Zebras

    ), who very nearly said:

    Chess
    is more a game of skill than
    a game of knowledge.

    He did indeed say:

    Improvement
    begins at the edge of your
    comfort zone” (p.14)

    [

    Vygotsky

    !
    shouted Ish.]

    “If you want to get better at chess you
    need to place much less emphasis on ‘study’ whereby you increase your
    knowledge of positions, and place more emphasis on ‘training,’ whereby
    you try to solve problems, play practice games, or perhaps try to beat
    a strong computer program from an advantageous position.” (p.25).

    “Chess skill emerges from chess playing
    combined with chess training, where ‘training’ means working things out
    by yourself.nbsp; The main skill a chess-player needs is skill in
    making decisions, so that’s what you need to do and do
    repeatedly. 

    If you want to
    become a better player, you need better habits, and you cultivate
    better habits through training.  The best training is the kind
    that pushes you up against the edges of your comfort zone, where you
    force yourself to take responsibility for difficult decisions.     
    It is so much easier to read books that give strategic guidelines,
    hints and tips, etc., but what you need is ‘know how’ and that means
    learning by doing.” (p.29)

    “…

    The
    main function of chess trainers should be to guide the training of
    their students, rather than to teach them directly.  The best
    thing you can do for a student is to select interesting positions for
    them and analyse them carefully so you can see the kinds of things that
    the student is missing    .  The trouble with this approach is
    prosaic, but real.  Chess tutors are normally paid by the hour,
    and this tends to make you think that you should be showing the
    students certain things, imparting knowledge, giving hints and tips,
    etc.  This is understandable, but much more useful, I think, is to
    give the student difficult positions to solve, to be there in a
    supportive role as they solve them, and then carefully consider what
    the student missed and why.” (p.66)

    We also did a little exercise, under review (watch this space),
    designed to find your discomfort zone, by giving a grid of
    progressively harder positions to solve.  I soon discovered that
    while there are 4798 puzzle books on Tactics, there are only 3 puzzle
    books I’ve seen on strategy
    and a few more that are mixed in approach, and bugger all on the
    opening.

    But mainly we tried to identify some things to work on.  So,
    name three things you do well, three things you don’t do so well…

    GOOD

    BAD

    PRACTICAL PLAY

     – Keeping up pressure in position

     – Going for simplest winning continuation

     – Limiting enemy counterplay

     – Playing moves that will annoy my opponent

    PRACTICAL PLAY

     – Using all of my time available

     – Keeping mobility

     * Piece chemistry/coordination

     * Making practice (at club and at home) really helpful
    in terms
    of improvement

    OPENINGS

     – Open positions/tactics in the opening

     – When I have the centre

     – Black is OK!

     – Gambit openings (e.g. Danish)

    OPENING

     – Too narrow an opening repertoire

    * Sicilian (one who plays for, one against!)

    ATTACKING

     – Sacrifices to get a position with advantage

     – Spotting possibilities for tactical combinations

     – Attacking positions

    * TACTICS

     – Calculating all the tactics out (relying too much on
    intuition
    i.e. Laziness)

     – I’m not good at spotting opponents’ tactical sequences
    well in
    advance (too many surprises for me OTB)

     * Attacking chess where simplification is not the best
    option

     – Defending

     – Complicated games where no pieces have been taken on
    the board

     – When you have to defend something and stop your attack

    STRATEGY

     – Spotting my opponent’s weaknesses

     – I’m OK with closed positions

    STRATEGY

     – Formulating strong/sophisticated plans in
    closed/tactical

    ositions

     – Strategy: pawn structures and the like
    [

    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/pawn-formations

    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/pawn-mobility


    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/whos-afraid-big-bad-minority-attack    ]

    – Endgame

    ENDGAME

     – I know very little about principles of endgame play
    [

    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/general-advice-endgame

    ]

    DR comments:

    As this is the third time I think I’ve tried to kick us off in this
    way, you may well want to:

    a. reflect on people’s responses from 2007 and 2008

    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/coaching-adults



    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/summer-coaching-2008

    b. ask yourself: are these the same things I wrote down last year?

    c. ask yourself: have I seen any improvement in the things I wrote down
    last year? and if not, why not?

    Some of these topics I’ve covered before, perhaps a while ago [see
    links].

    If you don’t think the links help, I’ll have another go of course.

    I’ve picked out a mix of themes(*) from your list of improvement
    targets,
    some old and some new, and suggest something along these lines:

    Jun 30: DR away (volunteer?/video?)
    July 07: DR away (volunteer?/video?) 

    July 14: Tactics
    July 21: Attack/Defence
    July 28: Co-ordination
    Aug 04: Sicilian Defence [Complicated positions]
     
    Comments/Suggestions/Volunteers invited!

    Wise words

    Posted on by

    The wisest things anybody ever said about chess improvement:

    “ …Almost all players lose the overwhelming majority of their games not because of things they don#8217;t know, but because of not consistently applying things they do know. “
    — Dan HEISMAN
    “Chess is more a game of skill than a game of knowledge”

    ” <> If you want to get better at chess you need to place much less emphasis on ‘study’ whereby you increase your knowledge of positions, and place more emphasis on ‘training,’ whereby you try to solve problems, play practice games, or perhaps try to beat a strong computer program from an advantageous position <> .” (25).
     — Jonathan ROWSON
    A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game./em
    — Richard RETI
    One of the main aims has been to highlight the differences in approach between a Grandmaster and a weaker player, and to try and narrow the gap. To some extent this comes down to technical matters – more accurate analysis, superior opening knowledge, better endgame technique and so forth; but in other respects the difference goes deeper and many readers will find that they need to rethink much of their basic attitude to the game. One example of this would be the tremendous emphasis which is placed on the dynamic use of the pieces, if necessary at the expense of the pawn structure, or even of material. This is no mere question of style; it is a characteristic of the games of all the great players.
    — Peter Griffiths
    If you have any doubt what to study, study endgames. Openings teach you openings. Endings teach you chess/em.
    — Stephan GERZADOWICZ
    The Most Common OTB Mistakes:

    1. Playing too fast because of overconfidence
    2. Not recognizing the critical moment
    3. Playing too fast because of carelessness
    4. Being overcautious
    5. Guarding instead of moving
    6. Miscounting
    7. Allowing a removal of the guard tactic
    8. Not adjusting from one phase of the game to another, or not playing differently when way ahead or behind
    9. Counterattacking a guarded rook when an unguarded minor piece is attacked
    10. Not developing all your pieces
    11. Making threats that are easily parried
    12. Overlooking that your move can be easily refuted by a check, capture, or threat
    13. Not asking yourself, #8220;What are all the reasons my opponent made that move?#8221;
    14. Repeatedly making the same opening mistake
    — Dan HEISMAN
    ..we are all occasionally guilty of underestimating the richness
    of ideas which lie beneath the surface of even the simplest, quietest-looking
    positions.
    nbsp;– Mark DVORETSKY
    If you want to get better, you have to change.
    Jan Przewoznik and Marek Soszynski
    Don’t play for traps! Don’t hope that your opponent does something stupid! … After deciding on the move you intend to play, ask yourself, “What wonderful thing does my move do for my position?”
    nbsp;– Jeremy SILMAN
    “The most important feature of the chess position is the activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in all phases of the game (opening, middlegame and strongespecially endgame). The primary constraint on a piece’s activity is the Pawn structure.
    — Michael STEAN
    Deux fous gagnent toujours, mais trois fous, non!
    — Alexander ALEKHIN, on the advantage of the Two Bishops at amateur level, and perhaps a reminder to walk before we can run

    Any more wise words out there?

    Ish’s Opening Stats

    Posted on by

    Introduction

    This season, I have decided to take Webb’s advice from Chess for Tigers and do a
    statistical analysis of my openings. I have arranged them by opening,
    written the opening outcome (advantage to white, black or equal), and
    outcome of the game. I have included some tips for preparing to play
    me. Unfortunately, I’ll be in china next year, so you won’t have the
    chance to use this stuff to thrash me just yet!

    White Pieces

    Opening

    +-

    +/-

    +/=

    =

    =+

    -/+

    -+

    1

    1/2

    0

    Total

    French 2.b3

    1

    1

     

     

     

     

     

    1

    1

     

    2

    French Exchange with c4

     

     

    2

     

     

     

     

    1

     

    1

    2

    Closed Sicilian 3. g4?!

     

     

    1

    1

     

     

     

    1

    1

     

    2

    Alapin Sicilian

     

     

    2

    2

     

     

     

    1

    1

    2

    4

    Ruy Lopez

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    Panov-Botvinnik Attack

     

     

     

    3

     

     

     

    1

    1

    1

    3

    Petroff 3. d4

     

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

    1

     

    1

    Vienna Gambit

     

     

    1

     

    1

     

     

    1

     

    1

    2

    Nimzowitsch Defence

     

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

     

    1

    1

    Scandinavian 2…Qxd5

    1

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    Scandinavian 2…Nf6

     

    1

     

     

     

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    St. George Defence

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1

    1

    Pirc Defence

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    Alekhin’s Defence

     

    1

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1

     

    1

    Total

    2

    3

    8

    8

    1

    0

    0

    10

    6

    7

    23

    White Summary

    Games: 23 (+3)

    Average Opponent= ECF 123.1 (New 136.0)

    Performance= ECF 130 (New 143)

    Overall, openings with white are going well. Need to look at the
    c3-Sicilian from a middlegame perspective because something is wrong
    with my play in the main line.

     

    Black Pieces

    Opening

    +-

    +/-

    +/=

    =

    =+

    -/+

    -+

    1

    1/2

    0

    Total

    Queen’s Indian Defence

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    Löwenthal Sicilian

     

    2

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    1

    1

    3

    Grand Prix Sicilian

     

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

     

    1

    1

    Other Sicilian

     

    1

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

    2

    2

    King’s Indian Attack

     

     

     

    1

     

     

     

     

     

    1

    1

    1. c4 c6

     

     

     

    1

    2

     

     

    1

     

    2

    3

    Colle

     

     

     

    1

     

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    Polish Opening

     

     

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

     

     

    1

    Total

     

    3

    1

    4

    5

     

     

    5

    1

    7

    13

    Black Summary

    Games: 13 (-2)

    Average Opponent= ECF 116.6 (New 138.0)

    Performance= ECF 109 (New 130)

    Openings with black have been extremely successful, apart from the
    Sicilian Defence. Probably need a completely new defence to 1.e4, or a
    complete overhaul of my Sicilian knowledge.

    Overall Summary

    Games: 36 (+1)

    Average Opponent= ECF 121 (New 136.7)

    Performance= ECF 122 (New 138)

    My new grade will drop by 5 points. My old grade
    would have dropped by 1 point.

    I would recommend that everyone do this, it’s quite a
    useful exercise. Took me about an hour. Then again, I like stats…

    Tips for Ish’s Opponents

    1. If you want to beat Ish, play 1.e4 as white.
      You’ll probably get a Sicilian.
    2. Ish plays 1.e4
    3. If you like the Sicilian, play it. You’ll score
      well. Be prepared to face the Alapin.
    4. Don’t play the French! He has two annoying systems
      which he scores well with (not included here is a blitz win against
      Andy Boyne).
    5. If you like the English, prepare for a Caro-Kann
      or Slav. He plays 1…c6.

    SuperMac! The French MacCutcheon

    Posted on by

    SuperMac! The French MacCutcheon

    Since I put this together, all the
    pop-up games have stopped working, sorry about that. Normal service may
    or may not be resumed, but meanwhile, you can find and play through all
    the games in this PGN file

    This line gets its name from a simul. game that the American
    amateur MacCutcheon played against Steinitz in 1885.  After some
    initial explorations by Tarrasch and Co., it was relatively neglected,
    but opening theory is never still… Chistiakov
    played it for decades, as has Volkov, and recently it has appeared
    again in Korchnoi’s games.  It has also been
    favoured by Ivanchuk and especially Morozevich who has found new
    resources in many lines.

    The Mac is supposed to be my main defence to 1.e4, but I often
    complain that I never get
    to
    play it!  Following the Shirov-Anand encounters in 2000, Whites
    seem
    more often to prefer 4.e5.  But the tide may be turning: after
    having one a season for the last 10 years, I’ve had four this year
    already.  So I thought I’d study it for once! 

    First, something to whet your appetite, an amuse-bouche and
    something more substantial as a starter:

    EG77:

    • Byrne D. – Shipman W. [C12]

    Gotcha!  And a classic encounter, known from Fischer’s
    collection of memorable games:

    EG78:

    • Fischer R. – Rossolimo N. [C12]

    Now for the main course:

    • Ideas
    • Variations
    • Bibliography

    Ideas behind the
    French MacCutcheon

    The counterattacking …Bb4 is less theoretical than the Winawer but
    shares its determination to double White’s pawns at cost of the
    dark-squared Bishop.  Given that Black’s other Bishop will be bad,
    White can hope that the c-pawns will not be so vulnerable that an
    attack that an initiative can still be pursued elsewhere. 
    Compared with
    the Winawer, Black can celebrate the exchange of another pair of pieces
    and the retention of the g-pawn; White can enjoy the lead in
    development and the concession Black must make to hold the King’s-side
    together (abandon castling with …Kf8 or create dark-square holes with
    …g6).

    The Mac promises counterplay… eventually. 

    The old main line melting pot (Alapin-Lasker Attack)

    1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4 g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5


    After 10…c5, Black doesn’t have a single piece developed, but can
    look forward to counterattacking against White’s messy pawns and King.

    “White usually continues with something like h4, Nf3, Qf4
    and
    possibly dxc5, but the order in which the moves are played varies”
    (Pedersen)

    Thanks, Steffen, for that illuminating comment 🙂

    Black also has a choice of systems:

    Blockade with …c4

    This is fantastically solid, and while Black’s Bishop is obviously
    bad, White’s Bishop also lacks scope (being able to move only
    backwards!).  It rather reminds me of the Dutch Stonewall; White’s
    light-squared Bishop is no more effective than Black’s.  There
    seems to be no move order with which White can unlock the Black
    fortress. 

    EG119:

    • Volokitin A. – Vysochin S. [C12]

    Alternatively, Black can play to hold the tension in the position

    How then to develop the Bc8?  There is a common idea: …cxd4,
    …Qa5, …b6 and …Ba6.  This usually equalises but the game can
    be rather flat as the tension goes out of it; you have to see the
    endgames coming and make sure you’re poised for them.

    EG112:

    • Peschardt S. – Koch M. [C12]

    Alternatively, Black can retain more tension by delaying the
    exchange on d4 and waiting for White to go wrong.  The fashionable
    way to do this with …Bd7-c6 and …Nd7 and then castling long. 
    It seems to combine the virtues of
    solidity and flexibility:

    EG110:

    • Bruzon Bautista L. – Glek I. [C12]

    I continue to play …Nc6 which is more active, but I do find it can
    fizzle out to a major-piece += ending quite quickly.  The critical
    line in this new arrangement has been tested at the highest level:

    EG106:

    • Leko P. – Short N. [C12]

    I think that’s enough for a broad-brush understanding of the Mac; to
    explore other themes we are going to need a bit more detail about the
    theory.

    Variations of
    the French MacCutcheon

    An attempt at refutation: h4, Rh3 and Bxg6

    This is a crucial line, and is in all lines Bxg6 is a crucial
    idea.  In
    all the main lines Black can at least survive although sometimes White
    can force a draw.  I’ll try and point out where White has an
    instant draw if they want it.

    EG121:

    • George I. – Rudd J. [C12]

    Harding reported the key discovery in the main line: after 13.Bxg6,
    Black hits back with 13…Nxd4!  This is a good move whether White
    reinforces the attack with the Rook (as in the game) or the Knight.

    EG130:

    • Schmidt H. – Harding T. [C12]

    Because of this possibility, I like to play …Qa5 when I can. 
    However, …Qc7, being able to interpose on f7, is also an effective
    deterrent.  Then Black might prefer to chase away the Bishop with
    …c4 before playing …Bd7 (interfering with the black Queen’s
    observation of f7).

    An example of White being able to draw occurs in the modern main
    line, where e6 is also loose:

    EG120:

    • Kolev A. – Comas Fabrego L. [C12]

    Black’s options in defence at other times include declining the
    piece (with …Rf8
    or other moves) or temporising with …Rg8 (when the King may feel less
    exposed).

    So, this is not a huge problem, assuming a draw is acceptable to
    Black,
    and the theory is not deep, but if Black ever fails to check the sac on
    g6 it can rear up like a garden rake hidden in the grass…

    EG129:

    • Smith R. – Goundar S. [C12]

    So, it seems the MacCutcheon cannot be refuted by direct attack, and
    White can settle for a more orthodox pursuit of the advantage. 
    I’ll
    review the main lines below, but there is a bit more to theory now than
    when I first looked at it.  I think Ivanchuk renewed interest in
    the Mac after his game with
    Anand (below) where, although he lost, he was a bit better into the
    middlegame. White players once more pushed deep into the forest of
    manoeuvres
    after
    9.Bd3, this time armed with computers and databases, but without ever
    catching sight of a definite plus.  White’s alternatives along the
    main highway have therefore also been re-examined.  Some tries
    formerly dismissed have become important, but also some disappointingly
    dull recommendations for Black have been replaced with more dynamic
    replies.

    Some theory on the old main line:

    To try and make sense of the morass, I have divided White’s choices
    between immediate tries, and those following:

    Nf3

    Flexible and almost certainly necessary at some point.  (Ne2 is
    an alternative which I have never seen played at top level but have had
    it in one of my own games.)   Nf3-h2-g4 is a natural career path
    for the
    Knight, but it can reappear on d4.

    h4

    Throwing in h4 certainly gives White some extra options on the
    King’s-side (like a timely h5 or even Rh3), and the odd tempo seems not
    to be crucial. 

    Let’s see what happens if Black meets both moves with the
    old-fashioned …Nc6 (…Bd7, …Qa5 and …Qc7 are all reasonable
    alternatives).

    Using the b-file: Rhb1 or Rab1

    These Rook moves don’t seek to refute the line but gain an edge with
    which to badger Black’s still rather restricted
    position. 

    After h4, moving the King’s Rook over to the b-file seems
    indecisive.  The Queen’s Rook might not be a bad try: White can
    try and
    over-stretch Black before deciding where to break, and it doesn’t take
    long for the Rook to relocate to the King’s-side.

    Immediately:

    Only 11.Rab1 is available and it is of course likely to transpose
    below.

    After 11.Nf3 Nc6:

    We have seen that the simplifying method works:

    EG112:

    • Peschardt S. – Koch M. [C12]

    Rab1 or Rhb1 can both be reasonably met by Qc7 (deterring Qf4) or
    the blockade:

    EG113:

    • Hector J. – Glek I. [C12]

    dxc5

    I was puzzled by this when I first saw it: surely White is playing
    into Black’s hands?  But Black will have to reorganise to make any
    use
    of the opportunities on the c-file, and the gain of the d4 square can
    be worth it.

    Immediately:

    This doesn’t trouble Black:

    EG104:

    • Hebden M. – Vaisser A. [C12]

    After Nf3

    Doesn’t seem much more threatening: Black’s demolition of White’s
    centre in the following game is very pretty to watch…

    EG139:

    • Yudovich M. – Chistiakov A. [C12]

    After h4:

    In this move order it abandons the e-pawn:

    EG108:

    • Brodsky M. – Vysochin S. [C12]

    So this is not so much a crucial opening idea as a middlegame one:
    White and Black must assess it on each turn to see if it is yet a
    worthwhile option for White.

    Qf4

    A natural try to invade on f6.  There is a common trick, seen
    in the Rossolimo game: after Black plays …Qc7, Black can meet Qf4
    with …f5!, covering the weakness on f6.  It doesn’t solve all
    Black’s problems, but it certainly makes life easier.  So, if
    you’re determined to play Qf4 as White, either play it immediately, or
    wait for something committal like
    …Qa5 or …Qe7.

    Immediately:

    The simplifying seems to work perfectly well:

    EG105:

    • Petrushin A. – Piskov Y. [C12]

    The blockade is not so convincing (see below):

    It’s not a bad moment to decide on the modern arrangement of Black’s
    minor pieces:

    EG110:

    • Bruzon Bautista L. – Glek I. [C12]

    After Nf3:

    The safest try for Black seems to be the usual simplifying of cxd4
    Qa5+ and b6

    EG114:

    • Koltsov_V/Lensky_I – Harding T. [C12]

    The blockade is not convincing:

    EG146:

    • Voloshin L. – Kyeck C. [C12]

    An early Qa5 can oblige White to recapture on d4 with a piece, but
    that isn’t a problem for White (who may play dxc5 to get a piece to
    this square!).

    EG115:

    • Brueggemann J. – Glek I. [C12]

    After h4:

    Simplifying still works:

    EG140:

    • Sutovsky E. – Glek I. [C12]

    And without citing a practical example, Psakhis mentions a variation
    on the blockade idea:

    So, what have we found out so far?

    White’s
    Move 11/12:     		R(ah)b1 Qf4
    and
    Black’s reply:     		Now After
    Nf3     		Now After
    h4     		After
    Nf3
    simplify
    cxd4/Qa5+/b6/Ba6     		OK OK OK OK OK
    Blockade OK OK NBG NBG NBG
    Queen
    moves?     		Qc7
    Qa5!?     		Qc7 Qa5 Qa5 Qa5

    That’s a sort of survival guide.  You can find yourself
    re-inventing bits of theory: in one game after 11.Nf3 Nc6 12.h4 Qa5!? I
    faced 13.Qf4! and decided to make the Queen move again: 13…cxd4
    14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 Bd7 which I later discovered had been played often
    and is all perfectly
    respectable, although 14.h5!? might have made me blink a bit.

    EG118:

    • Nyysti S. – Glek I. [C12]

    After both Nf3 and h4…

    …Well, first it’s Black’s move! — and the good news is that there
    is
    still
    a fair choice.  Our familiar pawn decisions are all still
    available (…c4, …cxd4) and there have also been tried various Queen
    moves (…Qa5, …Qc7 and …Qe7) as well as developing the Bishop
    (with …Bd7).

    Simplify – EG133:

    • Milos G. – Cichocki A. [C12]

    Blockade – EG141:

    • Panov V. – Kortschnoj V. [C12]

    Qa5 – EG117:

    • Brunner L. – Glek I. [C12]

    Qe7 – EG142:

    • Rivera Kuzawka D. – Hoffman A. [C12]

    Qc7 – EG116:

    • Firman N. – Pliasunov A. [C12]

    Conclusions?  It certainly seems that the simplifying technique
    works against
    anything White might try, but if you’re playing for a win as Black, you
    might prefer to keep more dynamism in the position, and for this a
    Queen move looks best.  Qa5 is active and Qc7 solid; Qe7 might be
    passive with this formation.

    Whatever you pick, there remains to be examined during the
    following play the interpolation
    h5 g5.  It’s not appropriate immediately:

    EG149:

    • Gilles R. – Sakai K. [C12]

    Fidgety Bishops I: 9.Be3 and 9.Bc1

    There are two fidgets with the dark-squared Bishop on move 9: White
    can
    play it to c1 or e3.  Both variations deny Black the opportunity
    to eliminate one of White’s pair of Bishops; also, the black Knight on
    e4 may become stranded and vulnerable to harassment with moves like
    f3.  They also offer the c-pawn as bait; Black will lose time and
    position by taking it, after which any attempt at counterplay is more
    likely to turn out better for White.

    Maroczy variation 9.Be3

    I sort of got the idea (from Eade and Pedersen) that Black either
    declines with …c5 (our first example game, above), or
    grabs the pawn on c3 but avoids …c5 to keep it closed (because of
    course after
    falling behind in development you don’t want to open the
    position).  To quote, Ben Goldacre, “I think you’ll find it’s a
    bit more complicated than that”: Psakhis gives as a line 9…Nxc3 10.Bd3 c5 11.dxc5 Qa5 12.Nf3 Ne4+
    13.Nd2 Nxc5 14.0-0     with compensation for the pawn but
    nothing more.  So perhaps all three approaches for Black are
    viable, depending on your view of the theory, and how you like to
    defend your gambit lines.

    Moskalenko favours what he calls a ‘Black jet’
    approach, taking an active stance on the King’s-side and harassing the
    White Queen.

    EG144:

    • Felgaer R. – Moskalenko V. [C12]

    Duras variation 9.Bc1

    This move retreats all the way while having designs on the a3-f8
    diagonal.

    EG102:

    • Balcerak J. – Richter W. [C12]

    Psakhis again assesses this line as ‘with compensation’, which may
    or may not be satisfactory for White.

    EG103:

    • Tal M. – Vooremaa A. [C12]

    An attempt at normaility: Qxd2

    White is by no means obliged to play Qg4, and keeping her majesty at
    home allows her to recapture on d2.  Play is more sober but White
    cannot hope for much with such a poor structure.

    EG99:

    • De Gleria F. – Glek I. [C12]

    There is a way to try and get the best of both worlds, following Qg4
    with Qf4:

    EG101:

    • Grigoriants S. – Glek I. [C12]

    Fidgety Bishops II: 6.Bc1 and 6.Be3

    These moves have similar motives as on move 9: to retain the
    Bishop
    pair, strand the black Knight on e4, and offer a gambit of the
    c-pawn.

    Olland variation 6.Bc1

    This has often been dismissed but is equally often revived… 
    Pedersen once tripped over this line as Black and struggled, so when he
    came to review the Mac he took care to ‘solve’ the problem of this
    variation, quoting this game (which is findable by searching on the
    name of the Black player instead of Rytschagov/Rõtšagov):

    EG143:

    • Rytshagov M. – Anderton D. [C12]

    Psakhis treats it with respect and concludes that Black’s problems
    cannot be dealt with so easily: in particular, he cautions that 15.Qg3
    leads to a White initiative.  I was duffed up in this line by Mike
    Yeo at
    Torbay last year, since, while I knew of the existence of 6.Bc1 I also
    had a touching optimism that all problems could be solved over the
    board.  (Not true…

    • Yeo M. – Regis D. [C12]

    )  However, a
    couple of rounds
    later, Richard
    Cannon played Pedersen’s recipe and the well-schooled Yeo produced
    Psakhis’ recommendation… without a definite result.

    EG128:

    • Yeo M. – Cannon R. [C12]

    In fact, this fancy line may not be necessary: …Bxc3 and …Ba5
    are both playable if sharp.

    EG89:

    • Borriss M. – Huebner R. [C12]

    Janowsky variation 6.Be3

    Again, says Psakhis, this is a serious bid for the advantage. 
    I haven’t yet had it played against me*, but it may be a better try for
    White than the Lasker line.  Black still has plenty of resources:

    EG94:

    • Timoshenko G. – Vysochin S. [C12]

    Moskalenko has recently described a
    ‘new’ (old) idea which seems to hold after a fashion, although I’m not
    sure
    I fancy it:

    EG126:

    • Areshchenko A. – Smerdon D. [C12]

    Since Moskalenko published his book, it seems to have cropped up a
    bit more often, so you are vulnerable to a TN here.  For example,
    would you be prepared to meet 8.h4!? h5! 9.hxg5!? …? (I’m not sure
    “!?” quite captures the spirit of that move; it’s one of Shirov’s, so
    perhaps one day his innovations will be assigned a symbol all their
    own.)

    * P.S. Just had it in the club championship!  The Mac is also a
    favourite of my opponent, so of course I faced the strongest
    line…  I tried reproducing the Byrne-Shipman line but showing
    good judgment Phil recaptured on d4 with a piece and I really struggled
    to do anything useful after that, and was lucky to escape with a
    draw.  So, next time it’s either Mosklalenko’s Black Jet or the
    chewy main line.

    EG150:

    • Trussler P. – Regis D. [C12]

    Other White dodges at move 6.

    Bernstein’s 6.Bh4

    Again often dismissed, but the very natural try in the next game led to
    a convincing win for White:

    EG86:

    • Kuzmin G. – Maiorov O. [C12]

    So, more recently Black has turned to the unobvious try 8…f5:

    EG85:

    • De la Riva Aguado O. – Vallejo Pons F. [C12]

    Tchigorin Variation 6.exf6

    Obviously crucial if it works, but also not any sort of
    refutation.  I
    was disappointed to think that Black would have to try and
    untangle a mess rather slowly after the variation given in the
    following game:

    EG147:

    • Landa K. – Morozevich A. [C12]

    But when asked the question, The Moz recommends that
    we play simply and
    dynamically …

    EG134:

    • L’Ami E. – Barsov A. [C12]

    White dodges at move 5: 5.exd5, 5.Nge2 and others.

    5.exd5

    [Igor Glek] is an expert
    in the MacCutcheon variation of the French. That stood him in
    good stead, as Glek wrote in the French magazine Europe Echecs,
    in 1988 when he was doing his military service in Russia. At that
    time Anatoly Karpov was playing for the Red Army team. Karpov
    asked Glek for advice about what to play with white against the
    MacCutcheon. Glek compiled a small file on the line that starts with
    5. e4xd5, which of course is not a refutation of the MacCutcheon,
    but very safe and, according to Glek, gives white good prospects
    for a minimal positional advantage. “Just what I needed,” Karpov
    said.     — Hans REE

    Again, I had concluded that
    Black would get a slightly worse but tenable play,
    but recent games have shown some reasonable chances for the defender:

    EG81:

    • Van der Wiel J. – Glek I. [C12]

    EG84:

    • Petrukhin D. – Popov R. [C12]

    5.Nge2

    A similar attempt to stifle Black’s play: I imagine Black can
    equalise quite happily after the game continuation but getting
    counterplay is something
    else.

    EG83:

    • Glek I. – Volkov S. [C12]

    5.Others

    At the moment, these all seem inconsequential.  Fingers
    crossed…

    Bd3

    Lasker used this in his match against Tarrasch, with not bad
    results but these could not be credited to the opening.

    EG135:

    • Lasker E. – Tarrasch S. [C12]

    f3

    Lasker also tried this against Tarrasch.  Note the move order
    in the following game, which quite often yields a classical French.

    EG138:

    • Stead K. – Kagan M. [C12]

    After Qg4, the King slide …Kf8

    Living legend Viktor Korchnoi (another man hard to find in a
    database! Kortsnoj, Kortschnoi…) played …g6 in his youth, but
    …Kf8
    later; the King move seems to lead to more complex play and so is a
    better way to play for a win (or just a more interesting game). 
    It’s not a way of playing I think I understand, but be my guest!

    EG79:

    • Anand V. – Ivanchuk V. [C12]

    EG80:

    • Anand V. – Kortschnoj V. [C12]

    EG91:

    • Fressinet L. – Vallin G. [C12]

    Bibliography

    Tim Harding: The Classical French
    (Batsford 1991)

    W John Lutes: French MacCutcheon
    (Chess Enterprises 2001)

    Steffen Pedersen: The Main Line
    French
    3.Nc3     (Gambit 2001)

    James Eade: Remember the
    MacCutcheon!
    (Chess Enterprises 2002)

    Lev Psakhis:  French Defence
    —
    Steinitz Classical and other systems     (Batsford 2004)

    Viktor Moskalenko: The Flexible
    French
    (New in Chess 2008)

    Justin Horton once asked
    for a book on the Mac, but this begs the question of purpose. 
    Eade’s Remember the MacCutcheon!
    is a great introduction, giving you a feel for the line in a way
    few opening books do by describing the emotional journey of his games,
    as well as throwing in a brisk summary of the
    theory (a book which deserves the exclamation point awarded on its
    title page).  Psakhis’
    book is not exclusively a treatise on the Mac, but is as thorough and
    authoritative as one could wish.  And Lutes’ is a neglected gem,
    throwing in a huge amount of antiquarian material on the French in
    general and a lot of non-English-language sources on the Mac.  He
    refrains from offering his own opinions as to the best routes, but
    provides you with the most detailed map of the terrain.  Lastly,
    Moskalenko’s book is a passionate and partial look at the French,
    including a nice chapter on the Mac with lots of original suggestions.